this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2024
861 points (97.2% liked)

politics

19080 readers
3394 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Of course they were holding her back. I don't think there's any argument they weren't.

If she had been out and doing town hall events, it would have drawn attention to the fact that Biden wasn't doing those things. Normally an energetic VP is a great partner who can double the number of events a candidate can do. But, the Biden campaign was too worried about her making him look old and feeble.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

she probably has been, but it doesn't get coverage because no one ever cares about VPs.

except for Cheney probably but that's another story.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Actually, now that I think about it, Pence is the only other VP i can think of in the last few decades that got as little attention as Kamala. Biden and Cheney were both more on the radar when they were VP. With Gore, I'm not sure, since my biggest memory of him was running against W.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Biden didn't get as much attention as Cheney, but had his moments because he kept swearing and making weird remarks.

also he jumped the gun on marriage equality while Obama was dancing around civil unions so forced his hand into supporting gay marriage...

but still no one really cared about him making speeches, especially since the president was Obama, one or the best orators in our lifetime, regardless of what you may think of his policies.

which reminds me, Harris does seem to be drawing from his style a bit. not as obviously as buttigieg tries to, but she seems to be subtly using some of the rhetorical devices. her speech that "we're not going back" was pretty good. she also said (i think in another speech) that "we want to ban assault rifles; they want to ban books". she's getting good at it.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

Bush Senior did enough as a VP that he was elected to follow Reagan. Bush Sr. chose Quayle as his VP, but that guy was such a lightweight that he became a laughingstock and nobody really cared what he did. Clinton and Gore really did seem like a partnership. Gore was doing some pretty visible things as VP and Clinton didn't mind sharing the spotlight. Cheney was pretty infamous as a VP.

It's more the last 2 VPs that were relatively low profile. With Biden that wasn't much of a surprise, he was an older dude chosen for his connections serving under a very charismatic guy who was a great orator. With Pence... well I don't think it's any surprise that the spotlight was on Trump, and that Trump didn't want to actually give Pence anything to do.